And see, everything I've listed above are things that Liberals think are fine.

I'm a liberal and I'm not "fine" with any of those things. Except foreign aid, since I don't know what you're even referring to specifically. I am not
fine with the PATRIOT Act. I'm not fine with war. I'm not fine with the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. I'm not fine with poverty. I'm
not fine with double-digit unemployment. I'm not fine with out of control spending. I'm not fine with a failing education system. I'm not fine with
the prison system. I'm not fine with the "war on drugs".

The biggest difference in the gambling scenario is that Republicans would most often be gambling with their own hard-earned money, thus the
conservative and individually responsible approach of fight or flight.

Democrats' go-with-the-flow method, or social method, means that if everyone else is doing it, it's only fair that they can do it too. It must also
be very easy to be liberal (or use freely in large amounts) with social (not just of the individual's) monies.

Irresponsibility with money is not evolution, it is the road to ruin. Conservatism more aptly describes evolution as those that conserve are going to
be the ones who survive; and only the survivors will evolve.

Interesting study. It would also be interesting to know what sorts of results they would get with people who have libertarian viewpoints.
As for conservatives and fear, for some reason some people here seem to be implying that fear is a bad thing. If you can imagine these same people
that were referenced in the study having been born 15,000 years ago and living in, say, prehistoric Africa, fear would not only would not necessarily
be a bad thing, but it may just keep you alive long enough to reproduce and rear the next generation. For a stone-age conservative, the snap of a
twig in a thicket up ahead might mean a prey animal that he could kill and eat, or it could just as easily mean a predator that would kill and eat
him. But, based on what the study says, the stone age liberal wouldn't be as fearful, but would take the same risk of approaching the thicket,
probably assuming the sound was a small animal that he could kill and help feed his tribe. In this scenario, the conservative would obviously be
better prepared if what was in the thicket was a sabertoothed cat rather than a harmless lizard.
Self-preservation is an extremely useful trait for any creature that has predators (as humans once did and still do if we go into certain wild
places), as is the assumption that a noise or shadow is a predator even if it is not. The thing is, in a very Darwinian sense, as would have
certainly been the case in the stone age, if the man runs or prepares to fight he is more likely to live to see another day if the sound in the bush
did turn out to be a predator.
This sort of thing could also imply that liberals might be easier to take advantage of, if indeed it is true that they are less inclined to be wary of
other people and things on an individual level. In a nutshell, fear isn't always a bad thing, and can definitely be a useful trait when it comes to
survival, even in today's day and age.

As far as Liberal-blue brain thinking goes...
Tying everyone up together in social-dominance land in which they are all dependent on exploiting each-other into misery...isn't necessarily a step
forward in evolution...

There seems to be a severe distaste for individualism even on the most minuscule scales from their perspective...they have a really hard time minding
their own business and accepting reality.

They have an ego that leads them to think they can "fix" the world if they just pass enough laws and incarcerate enough people...they see the faults
in all but themselves and refuse to acknowledge their "solutions" as counter-productive...

And the number one unacceptable eventuality from this blue-brain is that they must use FORCE to accomplish their goals. They must push themselves and
their ideals onto others in a glorious display of arrogance and hypocrisy. Demanding and commanding conformity at the end of those barrels they so
despise...

I am a libertarian by nature and I disagree with both sides of the isle more times than not...I don't identify with red or blue...I identify with
myself and expect others to do the same.

Have your thoughts and preach your word, express yourself freely and live your lives as you see fit, but do not tread on me/others in the
process...that is where you cross the line.

If only people focused on their own lives they wouldn't have time to invest and push themselves into others lives.

Diversity... appreciate and accept it as there is no greater diversity than individuality.

Boy, I sure wish I could live in a world where all the complexities of politics, economics and society can be summed up into such a simple phrase:
"Blame Obama."

Alas, I do not.

I do appreciate your one line post, though. Gives us so many things to constructively discuss.

There was a choice. Ron Paul was the choice. Democrats couldn't vote against their party. Conservatives couldn't get their head out of the sand. 95%
of blacks voted for Obama... because they agreed with his politics? That's a rather high number don't you think?

Let me ask you a question: who are the people pushing racial division in this country? Liberals. Who are the people trying to ban guns? Liberals. Who
are the people trying to push SOPA? Liberals. American can't find jobs but who are the people trying to pass immigration reform? Liberals. More
control. More rules. More Government. All Liberal ideas.

This is not about everything being Obama's fault. The fact is, Obama has done nothing to fix the problems Bush created. He renewed the Patriot Act
and signed the NDAA into law. Where is this hope and change? All I see is same old same old with a little bit of gun control thrown on top.

So, basically, what probably happened is that they tested the two ends of the spectrum, while most of humanity probably lies somewhere in the
middle.

Another thing is that it seems pretty clear that they are trying to demonize Republicans. I'm no great fan of Republicans myself, but it seems pretty
clear from the language that they're trying to pain conservatives as running on fear and being irrational. I'd like to know what other things are
controlled by the parts of the brain mentioned.

Originally posted by spqrenki
95% of blacks voted for Obama... because they agreed with his politics? That's a rather high number don't you think?

I'm not going to get into the other issues right now cause I feel like it will get tangled in partisan finger pointing, and this is easy to dismiss
with basic facts.

Check what percentage of blacks votes for democrat in recent elections. Gore received 90% of the black vote, Kerry 88%. In the last 5 decades only one
republican has received more than 15% of the black vote, and that was Bush Sr in 88 against Dukakis.

My take on this all is subjective. It's conjecture. I think that the reason conservatives are so fearful and strained is because they're the ones
that're doing the tough s***. Just like when dad comes home after a long day and his kids have messed up the house and his wife hasn't cooked dinner.
Dad has to do it. Well that's how it's with conservatives. They do the s*** that nobody else will do and it shows in their stressed behavior. Since
somebody has to do it, somebody has to bare the burden.

Liberals have the wrong kind of brain to handle the tough s***. They don't have the correct hardware to gauge risk. That's why they're so relaxed.
This is why they're so soft.

Conservatives have "extra" fear stimuli because they correctly detect danger.

I'm really interested in this liberals hate individualism and want conformity line. Where is this coming from?

From my experience this really seems like bizarro world.

Conservatives have been attacking us "liberal hippies" who reject social norms forever. You guys cling on to social norms way more than us. It's
not even close.

You guys are against gays for not being "normal," You guys say they are going to ruin your "normal" society by not conforming to heterosexuality.
It's always conservatives who feel under attack from other cultures like "talk English or get out" "MUSLIMS!" "Chinese are taking over". So
many of you would only be happy with absolute assimilation. Conservatism keeps the war on drugs alive. Who is trying to make the bible the law of the
land? It's certainly not liberals. Is there anything less individualistic than establishing a religion as the law of the land? I could keep going on
so many issues.

Conservatives talk a big game on small government, but that really only applies to keeping government out of YOUR life, you don't care if they are in
mine though. If I want to marry a man or get an abortion, or do drugs, all that talk goes out the window. Some conservatives want to ban condoms. You
don't want government taking your guns, you just want them dictating peoples sex lives.

Please explain, what are liberals really doing that ends individualism?

Originally posted by mahatche
I'm really interested in this liberals hate individualism and want conformity line. Where is this coming from?

From my experience this really seems like bizarro world.

Conservatives have been attacking us "liberal hippies" who reject social norms forever. You guys cling on to social norms way more than us. It's
not even close.

You guys are against gays for not being "normal," You guys say they are going to ruin your "normal" society by not conforming to heterosexuality.
It's always conservatives who feel under attack from other cultures like "talk English or get out" "MUSLIMS!" "Chinese are taking over". So
many of you would only be happy with absolute assimilation. Conservatism keeps the war on drugs alive. Who is trying to make the bible the law of the
land? It's certainly not liberals. Is there anything less individualistic than establishing a religion as the law of the land? I could keep going on
so many issues.

Conservatives talk a big game on small government, but that really only applies to keeping government out of YOUR life, you don't care if they are in
mine though. If I want to marry a man or get an abortion, or do drugs, all that talk goes out the window. Some conservatives want to ban condoms. You
don't want government taking your guns, you just want them dictating peoples sex lives.

Please explain, what are liberals really doing that ends individualism?

Liberalism is by definition conformist. It's certainly sold as the opposite, but it's not in reality. Liberalism is so very tolerant that it becomes
diabolically intolerant of anyone not speaking the new "one" language and new "one" code of morality, do what thou Wilst. Liberalism has pleasure
as its highest truth, and as long as it can indoctrinate the masses to love pleasure, it can control them by simply threatening that somebody (I.e. a
conservative) will come along to take away that pleasure. It can say "they will prevent you from murdering your unborn babies!" and the crowds stand
up and applaud because, by golly, they can continue to uphold sex as a greater good than the life of innocents without ever realising what they are
actually doing. Liberals fight against God-given laws yet can't even fathom that the laws they've been given, and come to love, are from the occult.
Go figure that those who fight Christ in these last days of the end of the age don't even know that they are doing it. But I will add, all of this
applies to many conservatives as well.

This study of a lowly 82 people serves only one purpose for the occult branded "science daily" website - justification for eugenics - those who
won't conform to the new headonistic lifestyle whereby senses determine good and truth MUST have something biologically wrong with them. Enter in the
Imam Mahdi who is coming to "revert the children of Adam to their innate origins" through the "opening of the gates of science and knowledge" to
bring in the bliss of oneness. Right.

This division between liberal and conservative is simply the division of a house which can no longer stand because it has been divided. The occult
understand what Jesus meant, and to this end, have fractured a people along spiritual lines - by simply undermining enough of society to love things
which they should never have loved, then playing on their fears that those loved things will be removed. This applies as much to sex and money as
thinking guns are needed for protection. Give up the love of those things and their devious control plummets, but as in Judea, the crowds today cannot
determine that their very own teachers and leaders have swayed them to be children of hell simply to control every facet and minute of their lives.
The beast was to come roaring back, and today, we cannot see that it is killing us.

Interesting, and I think this is not the first study to find such correlation. I wonder whether libertarians are somewhere in between? Because they
lack the "collectivist drone" streak, but also the reactionary streak a "fear-based" approach may lead to.

Liberalism is by definition conformist. It's certainly sold as the opposite, but it's not in reality. Liberalism is so very tolerant that it becomes
diabolically intolerant of anyone not speaking the new "one" language and new "one" code of morality, do what thou Wilst. Liberalism has pleasure as
its highest truth, and as long as it can indoctrinate the masses to love pleasure, it can control them by simply threatening that somebody (I.e. a
conservative) will come along to take away that pleasure. It can say "they will prevent you from murdering your unborn babies!" and the crowds stand
up and applaud because, by golly, they can continue to uphold sex as a greater good than the life of innocents without ever realising what they are
actually doing. Liberals fight against God-given laws yet can't even fathom that the laws they've been given, and come to love, are from the occult.
Go figure that those who fight Christ in these last days of the end of the age don't even know that they are doing it. But I will add, all of this
applies to many conservatives as well.

I must say this is not the angle I expected this to take. I think your hard mixture of religion into a discussion that was initial focused on
political philosophy could cause some road bumps. I hope I can respond in a way that doesn't take this discussion to far off course. I also cut the
quote just to reduce the length of this post, but I'll try to cover your points.

I think it's strange that you seem to liken us to Aleister Crowley type of figures. Where does that come from? You did word it very eloquently, but I
don't think it was very accurate.

Who told you that our highest truth is pleasure? It's certainly not true for me or anyone I know. Personally I'm more into Buddhism, which isn't
compatible with hedonism in anyway. We are fully aware of the fact that pleasure can be immoral and lead to suffering. I'm not sure how many liberals
would consider themselves hedonistic, but hedonism is not a prerequisite of liberalism. Many liberals are in fact christian as well.

I can tell we aren't going to agree on where our truths come from. You seem think all truth comes from your god, and I don't believe in your god, so
I'm left to get truth from my experiences and honest observations of cause and effect. Since you where wrong in your assumptions of my morality, I'll
say I view empathy and compassion as the basis of it, not pleasure.

Since you specifically mention abortion, I think it's an extremely difficult issue for me, and I wish no one had to experience it. I personally
wouldn't abort my children, but I still feel compassion for those that do go through with it. The fact that you see them as cheering people, probably
means you aren't seeing reality. How can you see truth when you strip humans of their humanity? It's a detachment through demonization, it's a coping
mechanism that makes things easier to "understand". We could debate the morality of abortion all day, I'm sure we would even find some agreement, but
as far as the government goes, it's not their place to decide.

That said, what part of supporting a law that gives people the right to do something I personally wouldn't do, deny's their individuality and forces
conformity? it seems your stance does more for that than mine. If I marry a woman, but accept gay couples as well, what am I doing to force conformity
out of them? If I avoid hard drugs, but don't dehumanize those that do, and feel like our current system is a failure, where is my push for
conformity? You gave a nicely worded rant on people who don't stand in accordance to your vision of Christ, but I didn't get much to help me
understand where liberals hate individuality, and push for conformity.

I wouldn't say experiencing fear is a biological flaw either. Maybe we've been conditioned to see fear as a weakness, but it's an essential part of
our existence. It's natural and normal. Some are just more predisposed to it than others thanks to their make up. there is nothing wrong with that.

They are both messed up! Using one side or the other of their brains instead of both!

This is exactly why I am an Independent with some libertarian leanings

Don't be so sure of yourself; no offense intended, but no individual: I repeat, NO INDIVIDUAL, can use both sides of their brain simultaneously.

Ummm....your really quite sure about that?.....Really? Now, I've done alot of study/practice in meditation techniques and you might just be
surprised that it is possible to access and utilyze BOTH hemispheres at the same time...It's really an astounding/unifying experience...you should
give it a try sometime......

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Again the fact of seeking why something is wrong/bad/irrelevant is a trait of the conservative mind. The liberal mind would tend towards considering
the possiblities while acknowledging the limitations of the study.

This is complete BS.

Provide your data suggesting the conclusion you have made about the two is valid.

Especially your definition of the liberal mind. I have read studies indicating some validity towards your view of conservative mind but as to your
concept of the liberal mind . . . a complete fabrication.

The definition you give better suits scientific pursuit rather than liberal. There is a strong current of conservatism among the scientific community
in regards to towing the line that has been established and fighting new interpretations of material phenomenon and their source.

I'm just sharing my analysis of the data I read for this thread. My working definition of how a liberal mind operates is one that (like in the
article) tends to self-awareness and self as part of larger whole thinking. How can that be a fabrication when the sources I've cited in the OP
define it similarly?

Yes each type of cognition has it's place and uses as you pointed out in an earlier post - as individuals are task in life (IMO) is to balance the
two extremes as best we can.

Neither style is right or wrong - my thinking is that liberal thinking tends to be more appropriate in our modern world where life and death
consequences are rare and long term consequences more important and significant for survival as individuals and as a whole.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.